Today, in Brooklyn Criminal Court, disorderly conduct charges against the last seven defendants of 29 arrested nineteen months earlier were dismissed "in the interests of justice."  In two previous trials, judges had dismissed the charges after the prosecution phase.  The judge's written opinion received today also grants defense motion to dismiss on the basis of "facial insufficiency," meaning that the charges, which originally included Obstruction of Government Administration" were not properly filed by the District Attorney.

Some defendants elected to take an "adjournment contemplating dismissal," which is not an admission of guilt, but the twelve people arrested who chose to go to trial all have had charges dropped.  The persistence of these freedom fighters, and their attorneys from the Brooklyn Legal Aid Society, the National Lawyers Guild, New York Law Collective and Brooklyn Defenders was sustained through more than 20 days of appearances, two trials, multiple hearings, and the arrest and jailing of Christina Gonzalez for contempt of court when she righteously objected to an order from a judge who has written a white supremacist book.

Congratulations to defendants Greg Allen, Gbenga Akinnagbe, Fr. Luis Barrios, Randy Credico, Noche Diaz, Carl Dix, Christina Gonzalez, John Hector, Nick Malinowsky, Bob Parsons, Morgan Rhodewalt, and Matt Swaye, and deep thanks to attorneys Noha Momtaz Arafa, Genesis Fisher, Julie Fry, Daniella Korotzer, Elizabeth Latimer, Meagan Maurus, and Marty Stolar,

Another Queens jury didn't accept the District Attorney's argument that protesters committed any crime back in November of 2011 when we marched on the 103rd NYPD Precinct, second in Queens in stop-and-frisks.  To two counts of Obstructing Government Administration, they said, NOT guilty.  But they could not get past the idea that the police ordered people to move -- even if it was not a lawful order -- and convicted Greg, Noche, Ribka and Matt of disorderly conduct, a violation.  They will be sentenced on July 18.

Any time the prosecutors slink out of a courtroom, it's cause for celebration, and we are glad there were no criminals convictions. Attorney Marty Stolar, part of the legal team who defended the freedom figthers, said tonight, "I am satisfied with the verdict but also disappointed. I wanted the whole thing."  There was no lawful order for protesters to be dispersed, and they should not have been convicted.

A most interesting scene developed outside the criminal courts building afterward.  Although one alternate juror declined to speak to us, and another juror said "no comment" as to her thoughts on stop-and-frisk after two weeks of hearing about it, 4 jurors and one alternate hung out for quite awhile with defendants, attorneys, and supporters.  There were hand-shakes and hugs.  They said, as jurors in the last case said, that they were most concerned that our defendants not get any jail time.  "You all are great people!"  They wanted to finally meet the defendants, and attorneys, and learn more background.

Discussing stop-and-frisk outside Queens Criminal Court. Attorney Steve Silverblatt; defendant Ribka Getachew, and attorney Mani Taferi speaking with juror.An older African American man was most outspoken and warmly hugged defendants.  We asked if his opinion of stop-and-frisk had changed, and he said yes.  "I still think it could do some good.  But it's so unfair how only certain groups of people are stopped."  Another juror said the defendants, and our attorneys, were "really interesting, honest people, but we didn't like the police or the District Attorney's attitude."  She said the contempt for the defendants showed by the D.A's alienated the jury, a fact they talked about in deliberations.

The jurors asked to know more about our movement, and got flyers about the Stop Mass Incarceration Network.  All said that the experience of the trial had given them a lot to think about in terms of how the courts and police work.  A very basic question they asked: why did they system spend two weeks trying people for something that was completely non-violent and lawful, when there are real crimes being committed?

There are still five defendants to be tried on these same charges: Elaine Brower, Calvin Barnwell, John Hector, Richie Marini, to be tried Tuesday July 8, and Christina Gonzalez, whose case has been severed and is not yet scheduled for trial.  We have no expectation that the DA will drop the OGA charges.

There is MUCH more to learn from the scene in Queens.  The controversy over stop-and-frisk in the city, particularly the Floyd v City of New York lawsuit in federal court, and the way in which the NYPD's policy has become an issue in the mayoral race -- because it's now more widely seen as a big problem -- affected this trial.  More importantly, it shows how potentially widespread opposition to it could be, and what a responsibility we have to carry forward resistance to this practice, and to mass incarceration, so that even more people see that there is no good reason for the authorities to get away with locking up so many people.

The defense rested Friday May 31 in the case of the Queens District Attorney v Greg Allen, Noche Diaz, Ribka Getachew and Matt Swaye.  Defense attorneys moved for dismissal of both Obstruction of Government Administration and Disorderly Conduct charges on the basis that the DA had not proved there had been an government business disrupted by the protesters.  They argued that the NYPD, by barricading a city block had put the public at an inconvenience for what they claimed to know would be a non-violent protest.

In a development unusual so far in these proceedings, the judge did not immediately deny the motion regarding the OGA charges.  He said he is "holding in in abeyance" until the jury makes its decision on guilt.  He denied the motion concerning disorderly conduct charges.

Closing arguments Friday afternoon by defense attorneys Marty Stolar, Daria Aumond, Tom Hilgardner and Mani Taferi visited -- as much as allowed by the judge -- the reason the protest in November 2011 focused on the 103rd Precinct to deliver a political message against NYPD stop-and-frisk. Asst District Attorney Heyman pointed to "these four defendants" 34 times, saying they "formed a human wall to block people from entering the precinct." 

The NYPD's own videotape did not show such a human wall, and their officers did not show that any disruption had taken place, other than delay by several minutes of an officer entering the precinct.  They jury began deliberations late Friday afternoon and will continue at 9:45 am Monday.

The ten week federal civil lawsuit against the NYPD's practice of stop-and-frisk, Floyd v City of New York, ended last Monday.  We learned much about the quotas, racism, and cynical operations of the NYPD -- but it all added up to what many people already knew.  Stop-and-frisk is racist, unconstitutional and unjust.

The next day another trial of stop-and-frisk began in Queens, when four more freedom fighters were brought to stand trial for protesting at the capital of stop-and-frisk, the 103rd Precinct in Jamaica. On November 19, 2011, twenty people were arrested for standing outside the precinct doors, demanding an end to stop-and-frisk, and specifically in that precinct, which has the second highest number of illegal stops in the city. It's the precinct where NYPD killed Sean Bell in 2005, and where there's been intense harassment of trans people.

It's outrageous that Greg Allen, Noche Diaz, Ribka Getachew and Matt Swaye are even on trial. For 18 months, the District Attorney has refused to drop two counts of Obstruction of Government Administration against 13 people, even when the first group of four was found not guilty by a jury last November.  Prosecutors are bringing the same evidence, but say they hope to get a different outcome with another jury. 

It took two full days to get a six person jury and two alternates selected. So many people in the jury pool expressed opinions against stop-and-frisk that the prosecution was able to have some excluded for cause, because they said they wouldn't be able to listen to police officers and believe them.  Others who spoke out against stop-and-frisk, or had negative experiences with the NYPD, but said they could still be fair and unbiased in this case, were excluded when the prosecutor used pre-emptive challenges to exclude them. 

Of the last people in the jury pool to be questioned, four openly expressed opposition to stop-and-frisk. A young sister said she had been to protests against police brutality, and protested when Kimani Gray was murdered by the NYPD a couple months ago. She told one of those wrenching stories that breaks your heart about being abused as a child, going to court to testify against her abuser, and the prosecution not getting her abuser convicted.  A young man had friends who had been arrested during Occupy Wall Street when the police led protesters into a place, then busted them.  He didn't believe the police.  A human resources manager quoted statistics on stop-and-frisk, and said "I believe it's biased, and there is not evidence it stops crimes. Over 90% of the people stopped were doing nothing wrong, and they are almost all Black and Latino.  I think they should do stop-and-frisk on the Upper East Side (a wealthy area in Manhattan.) 

The potential juror questioned the most was a 40 year old African American train conductor.  He told of being stopped "many" times by the NYPD driving to work at night.  Our lawyer asked, "how many times have you been stopped?"  The court room -- except for the prosecutors -- erupted in laughter when he said, "you mean this year? I really couldn't even tell you."  He went on to say that his brothers, cousins, son, son's friends are all stopped a lot.  "And I do not know why.  We are all working, going about our business.  We have no records."  He said that he lives in what is called a "high crime area," and it turned out to be the 103rd Precinct.  He said that stop-and-frisk does not do any good, and he doesn't like it. 

We ended up with a jury of people born in Queens, and all over the world, who say they don't have an opinion about stop-and-frisk, with one alternate believing that it's a good practice which she is sure lowers crime, although she cannot site how. These jurors say they have never been involved in protest.  The prosecutor, who stipulated there was no violence from the protesters, is building his case on the fact that one could protest, even for a good cause, and still break the law.

Attorneys Mani Tafari, Martin Stolar, Thomas Hillgardner and Daria Aumond will argue that no laws were broken, and in fact the protesters were led, by NYPD officers, into a barricaded zone in front of the 103rd, and then arrested when they made a protest in front of the door.  The defendants will testify about why they protested stop-and-frisk.

The trial begins Tuesday, May 28, and is expected to go three or four days.  Trial support makes a big difference in front of a jury.  Join us 9:30 am Room K-15 at Queens Criminal Court.  125-01 Queens Blvd.  E/F train to Kew Gardens/Union Turnpike.

Today, 38 of us gathered at 100 Centre Street for Noche Diaz' trial on two arrests in which he was observing police arrest others, and got arrested and charged with some serious misdemeanors himself.  We all knew these charges, three counts of Obstructing Government Administration, one each of Resisting Arrest and Disorderly Conduct, which could have meant 2 years at Rikers, were piled on by NYPD because of Noche's well-known role in Harlem with the Peoples' Neighborhood Patrol, and as a freedom fighter who didn't walk on by when people were being abused by NYPD, but told them their rights.

Noche and his attorney, Gideon Oliver of the National Lawyers Guild, were prepared to for the trial with video, photos, witnesses, and with the truth that Noche didn't commit any crime in either case.   1700 people, including a lot of well-known people in NYC, signed on, calling on District Attorney Cyrus Vance to drop the charges on Noche.

We were prepared, in choosing the jury, to reference the political climate in NYC since Noche's first arrest in October, 2011, when we did the first wave of civil disobedience protest against NYPD's stop-and-frisk, and the lawsuit Floyd v City of New York, now in a fifth week of exposing the abuse stop and frisk means for hundreds of thousands.

Apparently the DA's enthusiasm for trying Noche got reduced by some or all of this.  The same Assistant D.A. who has tried many OWS cases, and who got 20 of us convicted of Disorderly Conduct last May for the October 2011 protest, approached Gideon Oliver with a vastly different deal than he had been proposing for the last year.  Instead of Noche pleading guilty to two crimes, and getting 30 days in jail, which was not acceptable, the state would drop all criminal charges, seek no jail time or fine, if Noche pled guilty to a violation.  This is what happened in court today, after Noche gave an excellent statement to the judge. 

We care celebrating! After 18 months, no crime, no time, no fine.  The most remarkable thing about the time in court was that a packed courtroom -- probably 80 people in addition to our crowd -- heard a young revolutionary describe an "average day in Harlem" in terms most deeply felt to be their experience, win a victory, and walk out to applause.  One person who really lost it then, Judge McGrath, who almost jumped over the bench, screaming, "SHUT UP! This is a courtroom,
not a playground.  GET OUT! CLEAR THE COURT!"  A young man grabbed one of us, and said, with pride, "you all are NO JOKE!" (another version is that he said "you mf's are serious!") and others came out to shake Noche's hand, and say they had seen him on Channel 12 this morning.  Cornel West texted, "Give my love to brother Noche on the occassion of this victory."

Most strongly, people in line and walking by, stopped to find out what was extraordinary about Noche: a young person who doesn't walk on by when someone is stopped by the police, but lets them know they have rights, and that there is a whole different way the world could be.  We met many friends today, and saw people holding heads a little higher, because people do not have to be beat down like they are.  Thanks to friends from the Lower East Side, the Revolution Club, and many on this list who came out today, who circulated the statement for Noche, and signed it.

NEXT UP: Noche still has charges in 3 boroughs: Disorderly Conduct in the Jeffeth James beating by NYPD in The Bronx; Disorderly Conduct with 6 others in Brooklyn from the November 1, 2011 protest of Stop-and-Frisk, and with 8 others in Queens where charges are still 2 counts of OGA.  This wave of protest isn't over until all the charges are gone.  And:

Court hearing for people arrested in March when Kimani Gray was killed in Brooklyn,
Thursday April 25 at 120 Schermerhorn Street, 9:30 am

Monday April 29, 7:00 pm Next Stop Mass Incarceration Network Meeting.  Riverside Church
120th & Claremont.  Agenda will be discussion of Carl Dix' proposal for action to support the
July California prison hunger strike.

Next freedom-fighter trial: Monday May 20, Queens Criminal Court for Greg Allen, Noche Diaz,
Ribka Getachew and Matt Swaye.

For the third time, seven remaining Brooklyn defendants appeared to have charged dismissed before a judge who had dismissed them for four protesters in the November 1, 2011 stop-and-frisk action at the 73rd Precinct.  For the third time, that judge was not on the bench.  Brooklyn prosecutors won't dismiss, and say they are ready to try the seven on disorderly conduct charges, having failed in the first two trials to have convinced judges that there were any laws broken.

So our defense attorneys are filing a written motion for dismissal, on which a decision will be given June 4. Last we heard from the prosecutors, they are still searching for evidence to get a conviction.  They won't find it, but they are dragging people into court successfully.  So far there have been 16 or 17 appearances in this case.

Four defendants are on for trial Monday in Queens: Calvin Barnwell, Elaine Brower, John Hector and Richie Marini.  Judge Lopez, who was in charge of the trial of Carl Dix, Jamel Mims, Bob Parsons and Morgan Rhodewalt last fall, denied our motion to dismiss charges against the remaining nine defendants, even though a jury found them not guilty of the criminal charges.

We're calling on everyone available to come to court Monday, or days next week as the trial proceeds, at 12501 Queens Boulevard, Kew Gardens.  Updates will be posted every day at this site.

Note:  This was received from the Alan Blueford Coalition back in October 2012, and we thank them, and apologize for the late posting.

The Justice 4 Alan Blueford Coalition (http://justice4alanblueford.org/) stands in solidarity with Jamel Mins, Carl Dix, Robert Parsons, Morgan Rhodewalt and their eight companions, standing trial in New York City on trumped-up charges brought by the Queens County District Attorney, Richard Brown, for peacefully protesting the unconstitutional Stop & Frisk policies of the New York Police Department.

Alan Blueford, an 18-year old black student, was murdered as the consequence of an illegal stop & frisk in Oakland, California on May 6th, 2012. Recognizing this, the Coalition has made the elimination of stop & frisk -- a de facto policy of the Oakland Police Department -- one of its five demands in seeking justice for Alan Blueford.

Countless youth and men of color have been harassed and their lives put in jeopardy by this police tactic designed to intimidate an entire generation. The Justice 4 Alan Blueford Coalition salutes all those in New York City who have taken up the battle against Stop & Frisk. We here in Oakland are watching as events unfold in New York City: every
march and every press conference, developments in each trial and lawsuit, and your struggle to legislatively end Stop & Frisk by enacting the Community Safety Act.

We call on everyone from coast to coast and in between to demand that District Attorney Richard Brown drop all charges a against these peaceful protesters, and we also ask everyone to sign the Stop Mass Incarceration petition calling for dismissal of all charges at stopmassincarceration.org/resolution.html.

UPDATE:  Seven defendants remaining for trial were told on March 12 that charges would be dismissed in the case, but only when they return for a scheduled trial on Monday March 18.  This makes, for some 14 separate days in court on charges that had no legal merit in the first place.

After two days of prosecution witnesses -- four cops -- the judge in the Brooklyn Criminal court trial of Gbenga Akinnagbe, Luis Barrios, Carl Dix and Morgan Rhodewalt granted defense motion to dismiss charges of disorderly conduct.  The trial of Gregory Allen, who defended himself in November, brought the same result.  Defense counsel says it's likely that six remaining defendants scheduled for trial March 12 will also win dismissal.
This is good news, and hard won, after dozens of court appearances.

Prosecutors initially charged 20 defendants with disorderly conduct, a violation, and two counts of Obstruction of Government Administration, a Class A misdemeanor carrying a maximum penalty of 12 months.  Last fall, the OGA charges were dropped when prosecutors admitted that video evidence didn't support them.

But even after Greg Allen convinced a judge that the prosecutors couldn't prove disorderly conduct, the Brooklyn District Attorney proceeded in a second trial on the same facts.  Three arresting officers and Captain William Gardner of the Brooklyn North Task Force described their mission as "counter-terrorism, high-crime patrols, and disorder control."  The task force has special training in crowd control and dispersion, and was a key part of NYPD's small army of police surrounding and trailing Occupy Wall Street. When asked, the Captain said he had "no opinion" on the message of the November 1, 2011 protest against NYPD's stop-and-frisk practice.

The protest was the second in a campaign of nonviolent civil disobedience by the Stop Mass Incarceration Network to end the NYPD policy.  Jason Lewis, in the Village Voice, Ninth Time's the Charm? Nah, But Arrested Stop and Frisk Protestors Finally Go to Trial in Brooklyn"NYPD officer John Blanco--who arrested co-defendant the Rev. Luis Barrios of St. Mary's Episcopal Church--was the first of five cops to deliver testimony in the trial. Blanco repeatedly indicated that he didn't observe any protestors blocking entry into the building. In fact, he testified that he never even saw anyone attempt to enter the precinct through that entrance."

Matt Sledge, writing in The Huffington Post, NYPD Stop-And-Frisk Policy Challenged In Court By 'The Wire' Actor:  "On cross-examination, defense attorney Martin Stolar was able to extract from Blanco, over the prosecutor's objections, that he has stop-and-frisked a number of New Yorkers as part of his work with an NYPD high-crime task force. In 2011, the year of the protest, 73rd Precinct officers stopped 25,167 New Yorkers. Ninety-eight percent of them were black or Latino."

Defense counsel from Brooklyn Legal Aid Society, and Marty Stolar of the National Lawyers Guild successfully argued that the prosecution never established facts to prove disorderly conduct, in that no lawful order to disperse was given, but rather an arbitrary order to leave.  The precinct was open to the public during the loud protest outside; protesters were arrested very quickly after arriving in front of the precinct.

The work of the whole Brooklyn defense team is much appreciated by the Stop Mass Incarceration Network and the defendants.  Thanks to Noha Momtaz Tahrir Arafa, Genesis Fisher, Julie Fry, Daniella Korotzer, Elizabeth Latimer, Meg Maurus, Alex Smith, Marty Stolar, and Amy Swenson.

Also from Revolution: "Victory in 15-month political battle: Charges Dismissed Against Brooklyn Stop-And-Frisk                  Freedom Fighters"

by Carl Dix

The judge who handed down the sentences in the Queens’ Stop & Frisk case got personal.  I got a $250 fine, 5 days court observation and $120 court costs.  Morgan Rhodewalt got the fine, 5 days community service and court costs.  Jamel Mims got 5 days community service and court costs.  And Bob Parsons got court costs.  1st off, we shoulda gotten off with time served—no fines and no community service.  Stop & Frisk is wrong, and we were right to protest it!

In handing down these sentences, the judge said, ‘The jury saw thru Dix’s arrogance, and Rhodewalt’s false statements.’  Of course, the jury hadn’t said any of this.  The judge was really spitting his own venom at us, and he followed that up by giving Morgan and me extra punishment.

Why did the judge say I was arrogant?  Because he feels it was arrogant of me to decide Stop & Frisk was racist, illegal and illegitimate and to call on people to join a campaign of civil disobedience to stop it!  And to come into his court and say that what we did was the right thing to do.  He probably thought my statement before sentencing was also “arrogant.”  I noted that “Ray Kelly told 3 Black legislators he wanted every Black and Latino youth to be afraid they might be stopped & frisked every morning when they leave their house.”  I added, “This was wrong, and we were right to stand up and say NO MORE to this outrage.”

Morgan’s “false statement” was about his complaint to the Civilian Complaint Review Board over the police having tightened his handcuffs so tight he lost use of his thumbs for several weeks.  Before the trial, the prosecution argued, unsuccessfully, that this complaint amounted to a confession of guilt in this case.  But the jury never saw this statement, so it’s ludicrous to say they saw thru his false statements.  (There’s something to learn from this.  The complaint to the CCRB didn’t in any way deter cops from making handcuffs too tight on people they arrest, but it did serve to give the government an added way to target the defense in this charged political case.)

There’s another wrinkle to the judge sentencing me to court observation.  He said he did this in consideration of my physical condition.  Rev. Steven Phelps, the Senior Minister at the Riverside Church had offered that we could do any community service we were sentenced to could be done thru ministries at their church.  If the only issue was coming up with community service that fit my physical condition, the Riverside Church’s offer would’ve fit the bill.  The judge was essentially saying that he was going to take this arrogant Black man and make him sit in his court room, under his thumb, and maybe teach him some humility.

That won’t happen!  Stop & Frisk is still wrong.  Mass Incarceration is still racist and illegitimate.  It is right to stand up and say NO MORE to this slow genocide strangling inner city Black and Latino communities across the country!  Watching this judge operate in court for a week won’t change any of that.

Originally posted on No War No Torture by Nancy Van Ness

Police can and do make errors and give orders that are not legal, sometimes accidentally like every other human being and sometimes on purpose. It is chilling that a judge, who is supposed to be impartial and not a tool of the police, would tell someone that he has to do what the police tell him.  The moment that we citizens allow the police to think for us, we live in a police state and when judges back that up, we are in real trouble.

It appears from the following incident in the Bronx court today that we are in real trouble. Below is a report from that court room today:

“Josh [Norkin, attorney for Noche Diaz, activist against the Stop and Frisk police, see more here and here] went in front of the judge, who immediately started lecturing Noche that when a cop tells him something, he has to do it.  She went on at length speculating that, whatever Noche had done, he didn’t want to obey the cop, or tell the court what he was doing.  Josh took her on in a loud clear voice.  ‘We know exactly what was going on. The police were beating a man terribly in the street, and a crowd gathered.  Noche was in the crowd, observing.’ The judge said Noche had to follow the police order to move.  Josh said no, he didn’t.  ‘It wasn’t a lawful order.’

“The judge didn’t like this at all.  ‘I suppose he wants to stand on his constitutional rights, but he doesn’t have them here.’  She asked the DA if they would offer an ACD (adjournment in contemplation of dismissal).  They did offer it.  Josh told the court, “‘We will refuse an ACD’

“Hell, yeah.  The whole point of defending ourselves against these unjust arrests is to establish that people have the right to observe and document police abuse.  Just because the NYPD arrests you while doing it, doesn’t mean they’re right.  It’s great to have attorneys on our side who see this, and who are just as outraged as we are.”  See the rest of Debra Sweet’s report here.

Are you outraged at the way the NYPD treat people of color in this city?  Are you outraged that the judge lectured Noche and wonder if she would lecture a Wall St criminal?

If you are, what are you doing about this?  Go the Stop Mass Incareration website, learn more and sign the resoultion.  Go to the fundraiser on Thursday for legal expenses for these defendentants who are standing up to police abuse in this city and to a policy that targets black and brown persons.  If you can’t make the party, you can still contribute online.  Link that site to your facebook page and other social media.  Go to a hearing yourself if you are in NYC.

Stop Stop and Frisk protesters are making an impact.  Though the corporate media don’t give this very much attention, alternative media in this city do.  Maybe most importantly,  the people in the courtrooms where these hearings are held, many of them from the populations being targeted, are getting to see resistance for a change.  They may be gaining some hope for a better world.

WE WON’T STOP TILL WE STOP STOP AND FRISK